In a chapter dubbed ‘Ezam’s excuse for leaving the party’, the veteran politician shared that Ezam had told him a month before his resignation that he was “broke” and “ashamed” for having to “live off his wife”.

According to Syed Husin, Ezam had on May 13, 2007 told him that he was then “jobless and without any source of income”.

“I no longer earn US$3,000 a month as a director of a company in Indonesia as the company has closed down,” he was quoted as saying by Syed Husin.

“I have to look for opportunities to be appointed director for one or two companies. I can only do this if I can prove that I have left the party.”

The revelation, which the writer said was “absolutely unexpected”, came after Syed Husin asked Ezam about rumours that the latter had submitted a resignation letter to the Selangor PKR secretary.

“Doctor, I am quitting. Azmin (Ali) is no longer my enemy, (PKR de facto leader) Anwar (Ibrahim) is. Trust that I will do anything to destroy him,” Ezam purportedly said.

Syed Husin said Ezam’s “forthrightness” came as a “big shock”, and that he had sent a note to Anwar regarding the conversation, shortly after which the promising youth wing leader quit the party.

Narrating his reactions during the conversation with the now BN senator, Syed Husin said that he wondered if Ezam had been “bought by UMNO”.

“I remembered a letter sent to me by (activist) Hishammuddin Rais when he was behind bars,” he said, not mentioning the contents of the letter.

But while his matter-of-fact tone does not betray much about how he had felt over the incident, his views on Ezam indicate that the latter’s decision to quit had disappointed Syed Husin.

“I felt that Ezam had potential to play an important role in the party. It even crossed my mind that he could be promoted as a candidate for the deputy presidency,” he wrote.

MP ZULKIFLI NOORDIN:‘ The price is RM60,000

In a separate chapter, the memoir reveals how another former PKR man was said to have sought a cash payment from the party to quit his seat.

Kulim Bandar Baru parliamentarian Zulkifli Noordin, now Independent, was alleged to have asked for RM60,000 to vacate his seat in order to make way for Anwar to contest and get back into the Dewan Rakyat.

This was after Anwar’s ban from contesting elections, following his earlier conviction, was lifted on April 14, 2008. “(Zulkifli’s) win was challenged by the UMNO candidate who claimed that Zulkifli had not submitted his expenditure report.

“I was told Zulkifli (left) at first agreed to vacate his seat with the condition that he is paid by the party, word has it RM60,000, although I cannot ascertain the exact amount,” he wrote.

This, however, fell through as UMNO withdrew their election petition against Zulkifli, leading to the latter changing his mind about vacating his seat.

Zulkifli had months later criticised Anwar and the party, including on his blog “which was given much airtime by UMNO-owned media”. He was later sacked from PKR by the disciplinary committee.

Syed Husin said Zulkifli’s “slander” went into high gear later, “especially after he and another who had left the party, (Bayan Baru MP) Zahrain Mohd Hashim, were taken to the United States by the PM”. “According to Zulkifli, they had discussions with the PM every night,” he wrote.

Anwar later contested in Permatang Pauh after his wife and Party President Wan Azizah Wan Ismail stepped down to trigger a re-election.

“I know it wasn’t easy for Wan Azizah, as she liked being an MP. She often spoke about what had happened in Parliament in meetings,” he said. Wan Azizah’s decision, Syed Husin said, was an example of the sacrifices she makes for her husband.

Further, the members of our Judicial Appointments Commission comprise:

six Malays,

one Chinese,

one Indian and

one east Malaysia bumiputra, and

only one of the nine members is a woman.

To my mind, the situation could be due to a dearth of non-Malays in the Judicial and Legal Services, but overall women still outnumber men in this sector.

SESSIONS COURT

Currently, in respect of Sessions Court judges, there are:

119 Malays (56 are women),

two Chinese (women),

five Indians (three are women),

nine east Malaysia bumiputras (four are women) and

one Others (a woman).

MAGISTRATES COURT

For Magistrates, there are:

139 Malays (84 are women),

two Chinese (men),

one Indian (woman) and

four east Malaysia bumiputras (all men).

However, there are probably MORE non-Malays serving in the Attorney General’s Chambers.

But if other judicial officers such as deputy and assistant registrars are added, women would almost double men.

This is not a new phenomenon as, in the last two years, women have doubled the number of men entering the legal profession.Of course, non-Malay law graduates prefer to enter the legal profession rather than join the Judicial and Legal Services with the view, whether rightly or wrongly, that private practice is more lucrative.

In fact, with the revised remuneration scheme, the current basic pay of a magistrate who is a fresh law graduate is RM1989.45 (with additional perks worth about RM1,000 depending on the location where the magistrate serves).

This, of course, is far better off than his predecessor in earlier days, like in the early 1980s when a magistrate’s basic pay was only about RM1,050.

In any event, if the reason for under-representation in the appellate judiciary by NON-MALAYS is due to a lack of meritorious candidates in the Judicial and Legal Services, then resort should be had to the pool of meritorious candidates among senior members of the Bar just like in the case of Jonathan Sumption, QC who recently made history by being the first lawyer to be elevated directly to the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom.

Having said that, let no one mistake me as advocating a quota system or positive discrimination on the grounds of gender, race and religion in judicial appointments because that would go against Article 8(2) of the Federal Constitution.

I am also mindful of the views expressed by some women judges themselves, such as the former justice of the Supreme Court of Canada, Justice Claire L’Heureux-Dubé. She argued that it was not enough to have simply more women or minorities on the bench. “What we need”, as she was quoted by Australian judge, Justice McHugh, “is a change in attitudes, not simply a change in chromosomes.”

I disagree.

If there exists a total absence or a huge disproportionate presence of women and minorities at appellate courts, something must be wrong somewhere.

It is my considered opinion that the Judicial Appointments Commission should always encourage a diverse judiciary which is more representative of the make-up of our country.

We must also correct any perception that our judges, who are the arbiters of civil laws, are not fair and independent especially when they adjudicate upon sensitive issues such as race and religion.

It follows that who we appoint to the seat of justice isa matter of life and death.

As one of America’s finest trial lawyers, Gerry Spence, put it so trenchantly:

“Who are these judges who wield such power over us, a power reserved for God?

Who are these mere humans with the power to wrest children from their mothers and to condemn men to death or cage them like beasts in penitentiaries? Who possesses the power to strip us of our professions, our possessions, our very lives?

“They make law. They may take away your wife or your good name or your freedom or your fortune or your life. They are omnipotent.

And the question is: To whom have we so carelessly granted that power? Are they the kind who would understand you, who from their experiences would know something of the fears and struggles you have faced? Will they care about you or about justice?”

It is, therefore, my honest view that judicial diversity and meritocracy should go hand in hand because a judiciary which does not reflect the society’s diversity will ultimately lose the confidence of that society.

In other words, the strength of any judiciary is primarily dependent on public confidence even if seated on the bench are monolithic judges who are most meritorious.

This is achievable if there is the political will, and one only need to look at how successfully Presidents Bill Clinton and Barack Obama did in bringing diversity to the American judiciary.

Friday, 11 November 2011

Selangor state assemblymen are seeing red with what appears to be royal intervention in the RUNNING of the State Legislative Assembly.

In July, every state assemblyman allegedy received a letter from Sultan Sharafudin Idris Shah, commanding them to agree to amendments that would supposedly give the Ruler more power over Islamic affairs. (The state assemblymen) say it could have led to a constitutional crisis.

The letter was accompanied by a Selangor government gazette with proposed amendments to the Administration of the Religion of Islam (State of Selangor) Enactment 2003.

One assemblyman , who spoke under condition of anonymity, said they saw the letter on their desks at about 9:30am when they attended the July 11 state assembly sitting.

He said,

“We did not know what to do. We were totally shocked. It was a very delicate situation. If we went against it, it would have caused a constitutional crisis.

The Sultan is supposed to act on the advice of the state government, not the other way around. Even in the matters of Islam and Malay culture, the Sultan has to act on the advice of the state administration.

WE DIDN'T WANT TO FIGHT THE PALACE. We had respect for the palace. WE LET IT PASS.”

He added that if the assembly had snubbed the letter and voted against the proposed amendments, it would have been played to the hilt by both the mainstream and the Umno-led state opposition.

Phone call from palace

Another assemblyman, who also spoke to FMT anonymously, said that the proposed amendments were initially made available at a state pre-council meeting, a “few days” before July 11.

According to the state assemblyman:

Many state assemblymen present at the meeting were unhappy with the bill and hotly debated the details. “They voiced their displeasure at the bill. They felt they should have been consulted first because of its importance.

The Selangor mufti, state legal adviser and aides to the various assemblymen were also at the meeting

Menteri Besar Khalid Ibrahim said he was troubled by the introduction of the amendments.

"The MB requested that the bill be kept in abeyance pending further study.”

“The MB asked the officers to leave and the assemblymen to stay to discuss the bill.”

Halfway through the discussion, Khalid had to step out to take a call from the palace.Apparently, the displeasure of the state assemblymen had been conveyed to the palace.

“The MB did not make it clear what the palace had said, but the assemblymen took the cue, and understanding his (Khalid) predicament, did not pursue the postponement of the bill.”

The Sultan EXCEEDED his powers when he ordered assemblymen to pass the amendments.

Nevertheless, the BILL WAS PASSED after three readings.

Sultan’s Letterto the Selangor State Assemblymen

The letter was issued from the Alam Shah palace in Klang on July 11 and has the Sultan’s signature on it.

The Selangor Sultan may have overstepped his powers by commanding state assemblypersons to pass a Bill back in July, said Universiti Islam Antarabangsa (UIA) law professor Abdul Aziz Bari.

He said this when asked to comment on a decree signed by Sultan Sharafudin Idris Shah, ordering them to pass a slew of amendments to EXPAND the powers of both the SULTAN and Selangor Islamic Religious Council (Mais) over Islamic affairs in the state.

The decree, dated July 11, a copy of which was given to Malaysiakini was attached with a letter signed by the sultan's private secretary, Mohamed Munir Bani.To AVOID another confrontationwith the palace, Pakatan Rakyat lawmakers COMPROMISED and PASSED the amendments to the Administration of the Religion of Islam (State of Selangor) Enactment 2003, although they saw it as a form of ROYAL INTERVENTION with the STATE LEGISLATURE.

Since taking over the state government in March 2008, Pakatan has been at loggerheads with the palace over several issues.

Constitution Does NOT Provide Sultan with the Powers

Aziz, an expert in constitutional matters and have written extensively on the role of the monarch, said the constitution may not provide the sultan such powers.

He pointed out that although the Federal Constitution - Article 3(2) and Section 1(2)(d) of the Eighth Schedule - clearly states that the sultan can act without or against the government on matters pertaining to Islam and Malay customs, it was SILENT on the part of the legislature.

Aziz Bari said,

"While on Islamic matters the sultan may ignore the government advice, the same may NOT be applicable when it comes to the legislature.

We are NOW dealing with the legislative power over which the government CANNOT control. In fact the government is subservient - or answerable - to it.

The sultan is only free from government, but that does NOT mean that he (Sultan) is also free from the House.

Nonetheless interference in such petty matters, could make the monarchy, which ought to be aloof and symbolic, embroiled or entangled in mundane and routine matters, thus putting its integrity at stake.

It is just too much and would jeopardise the integrity of the palace; especially after what happened in Perak and Selangor after 2008.The fear is the powers may be exercised by some other parties.

For one thing the sultan may be too busy and this may lead to a situation where certain parties step in under his name.

Given that, what will happen to his role and position as the father figure of the state?"

Some of the amendments that give Mais the power to collect and distribute zakat as well as fitrah and free the council's account from being audited by the Auditor-General, were simply taking a reverse direction against calls for greater accountability.

Perhaps we can look at one example - the state awards. Although the constitution acknowledges the power of the sultan, it also makes it compulsory to get the consent of the legislative assembly should this have a financial implication.

It (the amendment) can exempt the bodies concerned from scrutiny and this is bad from the constitutional point of view."

Another controversy that has arisen from the amendments, is giving Mais the authority to administer mosques and suraus, including the power to appoint mosque officials and to direct the duties of mosque committees.

There are quite many mosques and suraus that have been built by the peoplehttp://www.blogger.com/img/blank.gif themselves; not from the public purse.

The new provision could be used against these privately-funded mosques and this is not good.

"This is where the position and power of the sultan needs to be seen in the light of Islamic ideals that actually stand at the very heart of the provision concerned."

Selangor Sultan's Demands for Amendments to a Selangor state law removes Selangor's Islamic Religious Council (MAIS) Accountability to the State Government.

It’s a bitter pill to swallow for many Selangor assemblymen now that the government may have lost control over the state’s Islamic administrative matters and the estimated tens of millions of ringgit in annual zakat collections.

The amendments made in July seemingly allowed the state’s Islamic Religious Council (MAIS) to be accountable only to the Sultan of Selangor, Sultan Sharafudin Idris Shah, bypassing the state government in the process. The amendments affected the Administration of the Religion of Islam (State of Selangor) Enactment 2003.

Previously, Section 16 of the Enactment – which was passed at the July State Legislative Assembly sitting – enabled the director of Selangor’s Islamic Religious Department (JAIS) to be appointed as MAIS’s secretary.

The secretary would also act as the council’s chief executive officer and administrator, and was responsible for carrying out MAIS’s policies and resolutions.

However, the July amendments took that detail out, and allowed the Ruler “on advice of the Majlis” (MAIS) to appoint the council’s secretary.

Speaking under condition of anonymity, a state assemblyman said that the change allowed MAIS to snub summonses from the State Legislative Assembly’s committee.

He told FMT.

“In one occasion, MAIS was summoned by a House committee overseeing statutory bodies and subsidiaries.

They refusedto appear on the grounds that they were not subject to the committee.”

Zakat money

The assemblyman added that MAIS was a statutory body created by the Enactment, and had financial autonomy in its affairs. He said,

“They still have to table their audited accounts before the House… They can appoint their own auditors… But they are not duty-bound to come before the committee.

The effect of this, politically, is a government within a government, and Islamic affairs are taken out of the control of the state government,. .

This was of special concern, the assemblyman added, given that the amendments also gave MAIS the power to collect and distribute zakat as well as fitrah.

Selangor zakat money came up to about a third of the state government’s annual revenue which was roughly RM1.4 billion."

With this in tow, MAIS, according to an anonymous Pakatan Rakyat leader, could do whatever it wished with its companies without worrying about the state assembly looking over its shoulder.

The Pakatan leader said,

At the policy and state level, MAIS has six or seven government-linked companies under it… They said that the (state) government has no shared interest in MAIS’ corporations.

So they tried to twist this (to their advantage), by saying that the administration (of MAIS) is under the Sultan…

If we raised our voice (against it), they will raise the issue of derhaka (betrayal).”

Royal appointments

FMT previously reported that Selangor state assemblymen allegedly received a letter from the Sultan at the July 11 state assembly sitting, commanding them to agree to these amendments.

Caught by surprise and fearing a constitutional crisis in the event of a refusal, Pakatan state assemblymen ALLOWED the amendments to be passed without a hitch.

Currently, the Sultan has the power to appoint the MAIS chairman, deputy chairman and “not fewer than eight other members” to the council.

MAIS also consists of five ex-officio (automatic) members – the state secretary, state legal adviser, state financial officer, the mufti and the chief police officer.According to the anonymous state assemblyman, the building and administration of mosques and suraus were also affected by the amendments.

JAIS, as well as the state government, he claimed, would have to spend money to build them, while the administration of these buildings would fall under MAIS’ purview.

“Now, to build a mosque or a surau, you have to get approval from MAIS… Construction of the mosque is under JAIS, but the management is under MAIS,” he said.

Another interesting development was the deletion of Section 85 of the Enactment.

Provisions of the Statutory Bodies Act (Accounts and Annual Reports) Act 1980 now no longer apply to MAIS.

No need for audit

According to Malaysian Centre for Constitutionalism and Human Rights lawyer K Shanmuga, this meant that MAIS did NOT have to submit its accounts to the Auditor-General.

He said,

“The effect of the amendment is that the accounts of MAIS (and any other statutory corporation established by MAIS under the Enactment) will no longer have to be audited in accordance with the Audit Act 1957 and submitted to the Auditor-General each year.

In fact, there appears to be no provisions in the Administration of the Religion of Islam Enactment requiring any audit.”

A script read by the proposer of the amendments passed at the July 11 state assembly sitting was also provided to FMT.

In regards to Section 85, it read:

“This section was abolished because the council is not included in the definition of ‘Statutory Body’ in regard to the Statutory Bodies (Accounts and Annual Reports) Act 1980 [Act 240].”